TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1891X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mind and has simply extracted the information received from the DDIT, INV Unit VI, New Delhi dated 11.02.2015. In fact, the Assessing Officer himself has observed that the donation in cash is likely to be unaccounted and disclosed. In our considered view, reopening cannot be done on suspicion unless the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment - assumption of jurisdiction by issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act is bad in law and assessment so framed deserves to be quashed - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.2539/DEL/2019 - - - Dated:- 26-4-2019 - Shri N.K. Billaiya, Accountant Member Assessee by: Shri Suresh K. Gupta, FCA Revenue by: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR ORDER N.K. BIL ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved from DDIT(Inv.), Unit-V(l), New Delhi dated 11.03.2015 informing that a search Seizure action u/s 132 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was carried out on 27.06.2013 in Santosh Group of Institutions and Dr. P. Mahalingam. During the search certain documents/ books of accounts were seized from the premises H-l to H-6, Santosh Nagar, Pratap Vihar, Ghaziabad, the main administrative block of the college which reveals receipts of donation/capitation fee over and above the regular course fee, paid in cash by the parents of the students taking admission in various medical courses. Vide above mentioned letter, it was further informed that the following person, the jurisdiction over which lies with the office has given donation in cash [which is likely t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing Officer could have easily asked the assessee regarding the source of capitation fee paid, if any, by issue of notice u/s 133(6) of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer chose to reopen the assessment, which, in my considered opinion, is bad in law. 7. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Shamshad Khan in 395 ITR 265, while allowing the writ petition of the assessee, observed that the initiation of case for reopening of the assessment was erroneous and without application of mind especially since the Assessing Officer had not examined the return filed, which if he had, would have revealed that the assessee had filed regular returns, had sufficient opening balance in his account and withdrawals therefrom, substantiated th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
